Re: [RFC PATCH 16/22 -v2] add get_monotonic_cycles

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>
> All this complexity is to be justified by keeping the raw prev/next
> pointers from being sent to a naive tracer?  It seems to me way out of
> proportion.

Damn, and I just blew away all my marker code for something like this ;-)

Actually, you just gave me a great idea that I think can help all of us.
OK, Mathieu may not be in total agreement, but I think this is the
ultimate compromise.

We have in sched.c the following marker:

 trace_mark(kernel_sched_scheduler, "prev %p next %p", prev, next);


Then Mathieu can add in some code somewhere (or a module, or something)

	ret = marker_probe_register("kernel_sched_scheduler",
				"prev %p next %p",
				pretty_print_sched_switch, NULL);

static void pretty_print_sched_switch(const struct marker *mdata,
				void *private_data,
				const char *format, ...)
{
	va_list ap;
	struct task_struct *prev;
	struct task_struct *next;

	va_start(ap, format);
	prev = va_arg(ap, typeof(prev));
	next = va_arg(ap, typeof(next));
	va_end;

	trace_mark(kernel_pretty_print_sched_switch,
		"prev_pid %d next_pid %d prev_state %ld",
		prev->pid, next->pid, prev->state);
}


Then LTTng on startup could arm the normal kernel_sched_switch code and
have the user see the nice one. All without adding any more goo or
overhead to the non tracing case, and keeping a few critical markers with
enough information to be useful to other tracers!

Thoughts?

-- Steve

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/